In this edited post links showing my adapter stuff on eBay meant as informational counterpoint have been deleted by me to remove appearance of counter marketing.

CVickeryRegistered: May 14, 2004Total Posts: 2700Country: Canada

....
Are you going to do more than 6 designs tho? I mean I bet there's lots of folks pinning for easy solutions for lenses like the 300/2.8L, the 300/4L, the 135/2, the 85/1.2L and so on...

You ROCK bro! Good luck to you!

Ed Mika already has solutions for the first three and apparently the 85/1.2L is due in a few weeks.

BifurcatorRegistered: Oct 22, 2008Total Posts: 9300Country: Japan

Awesome. Good to find out a guy like Ed exists! But this is Marty Castilla's thread. And jumping his thread like this is pretty close to doing the same things he's being slighted for.

Pretty bad form IMO.

According to Ed, his:Ed Mika wrote:
...main issue here is that something so similar to an adapter design of mine that Marty had purchased from me is being touted by him as something completely original for the solicitation of money and possibly worse, also being claimed as in the process of being patented. The last thing I want to find myself doing is having to defend a frivolous patent infringement claim on some concept I likely (and many others) had a major role in developing.
and the factors that ZoneV brought up make it appear to me to really just be a problem in the communication of the intent and idea. And isn't that what this thread is? Just a communication? Commercial thread-hopping is just as bad IMO.

Tho let it be known that I'm not out to nail anyone to a cross here - for any reason. Competition is a great thing! Let free market capitalism reign supreme!

And hopefully Marty can adjust his course enough to satisfy.

Ed MikaRegistered: Jul 21, 2011Total Posts: 58Country: Canada

Claiming other people's ideas as solely and completely your own is on a very different "bad form" level than the act of calling them out on it on the same internet forum.

But maybe thats just me.

BifurcatorRegistered: Oct 22, 2008Total Posts: 9300Country: Japan

Calling him out on it is not the same thing as jumping his advertisements here. Or do you not see that you've done this?

Hey, I'm neutral, I don't care. I'm a µ4/3 shooter and will likely never buy either product. But it looks to me to be unpatentable. It would be like me trying to patent rope. So all you got IMO is that his claims:

1) that it's so original, and
2) he's intending to patent it

aren't appropriate.

And that to me is the about same level of inappropriateness as saying you also are selling the same things and then supplying a link to the same on e-pay.

That's all I meant... <shrug>

Ed MikaRegistered: Jul 21, 2011Total Posts: 58Country: Canada

I see your point about the links and I will remove them. It was not meant at all as a marketing thing, more as an informational counter point to someone who didn't appear to have read the entire thread. -Ed

BifurcatorRegistered: Oct 22, 2008Total Posts: 9300Country: Japan

It surely can't be all about informing me because you thought I hadden't read the thread... Your very first post in this thread which was prior to mine, did the same thing:

This is a forum discussion on the technology. This is not a paid marketing advertisement for either product.

Ed's work and products are incredibly well known. Any Google search on Canon FD is likely to turn up multiple links to his web site and other internet references. Indeed, either the first or second reply here mentioned Ed's work, and it was mentioned in almost every post after that.

He is not gaining anything by posting here, but adding context to the discussion mthat repeatedly invoked his name.

I appreciate hearing directly from Ed his perspective on his adapters, his history with the OP, and his thoughts on IP, open source, patents, and the effort involved to devlop a product in the markertplace.

As a former software engineer, I am all too aware of the complex issues surrounding pre-existing knowledge and what is, or should be, open source vs. patentable.

This is a good discussion that informs all potential "stakeholders" about the history of FD to EOS adapters. and let's them draw their own conclusions.

Thanks Ed for your contribution.

(Please note: I have never had any previous contact with Ed, and I have never purchased an FD adapter from him or anyone else.)

Cheers!
Michael

BifurcatorRegistered: Oct 22, 2008Total Posts: 9300Country: Japan

Just for the record, me too:

mmurph wrote:
I appreciate hearing directly from Ed his perspective on his adapters, his history with the OP, and his thoughts on IP, open source, patents, and the effort involved to devlop a product in the markertplace.

brianthoRegistered: Oct 07, 2011Total Posts: 1109Country: Sweden

You should all cool it down a little.

Ed has a great reputation when it comes to FD-EOS adapters, he's been perfecting his designs for years. Even though I don't own a Canon camera, I actually own one of Ed's adapters for my FD300/2.8.

I don't understand Marty's pitch, I mean the market for these adapters is so small, and it's already covered by Ed. Even so, competition is always a good thing, but I think there are better opportunities out there than copying existing technology. Now, if Marty's adapter provided AF, or added some other revolutionary improvement over what exists, that would be a different affair entirely.

Ed, even though I know it's tempting to defend your products, I don't think it's necessary. You're years ahead, and have nothing to fear from this project. Marty, you obviously have the tools and skills to do productive work, so why not be innovative and figure something out that will sell, i.e. where the market hasn't yet been satisfied.

artdRegistered: Mar 01, 2011Total Posts: 1295Country: N/A

Bifurcator wrote:
But it looks to me to be unpatentable. It would be like me trying to patent rope.

Yeah. Or like trying to patent a shape. Say, like, a rectangle with rounded corners...

Our patent system clearly does not always function very well. There are lots of instances where ordinary people would look at something and think "no way that's patentable" but the patent office will grant it anyway.

Given that context, it seems to me like Mr. Mika is well within the realm of appropriate behavior in pointing out this "patent pending" product seems closely derivative of work that has already been done by him and others, and providing evidence to support that opinion.

Ed Mika wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't claim to have come up with anything patentable. I approach each kit development with a fresh sheet of paper but also a deep knowledge of how others have tried making things work in the past. Skilled and enthusiastic developers like Jim Buchanan, Marcus Keinaths, Eddie Houston and many, many others.

Marty's story line in his video about trying every available adapter on the market not giving him what he wanted because of the pitfalls of optical correction so he developed a glass free mount replacement approach is virtually identical to my initial development journey detailed on this articl ehttp://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/fd-fl-lenses-on-your-ef-body/ CanonRumors published over a year ago.

My main issue here is that something so similar to an adapter design of mine that Marty had purchased from me is being touted by him as something completely original for the solicitation of money and possibly worse, also being claimed as in the process of being patented. The last thing I want to find myself doing is having to defend a frivolous patent infringement claim on some concept I likely (and many others) had a major role in developing.

Seems very reasonable.

Ed Mika wrote:
Claiming other people's ideas as solely and completely your own is on a very different "bad form" level than the act of calling them out on it on the same internet forum.

But maybe thats just me.

Nope, not just you.

Ed MikaRegistered: Jul 21, 2011Total Posts: 58Country: Canada

For those interested and to further reply to the incorrect assertion that I've stopped developing the 85L EOS adapter kit here are the first two production level adapter kits. Infinity focus happens without mirror to rear element contact on 5D3 and 1D4 and 7D (and all crop) bodies and mirror hit occurs beyond 30 feet on the fatter mirror of the 5D2. I've moved the rear aspherical element far enough forward to just clear all EOS mirrors and I've developed a spring mechanism (The EdTraveller) in my design to have this rear element pushed back into original design position by focusing group of elements (to prevent glass to glass contact inside the lens). This allows the extremely good and popular 5D2 to be used with this shockingly great lens using the switch to live view trick for more distant shooting subjects. Accidental mirror contact with the Delrin material EdTraveller is still safe, I've got thousands of mirror hits with no markings or damage. The increased resistance of the rear element beginning to be pushed backwards gives a good warning of the need to switch to live view.

Marty I see you are quiet now since early in this kick starter sales pitch thread.

How are you able to patent something that Ed already offers for sale ?

I've noticed its popular thesedays to ignore the hard work of others, reminds me of that Wimberley Gimbal bootleg product thread here a few months back.

Sad times when people who put their efforts into making cool items that are then easily copied & in this case "patent applied" for.

I refuse to facebook, what's the "complain button" on bottom of this kickstarter page used for ?

Can Marty chime in on buying Ed's earlier adapter and how this purchase from Ed influenced his kickstarter project and how it ties into the patent he mentioned in his sales pitch for funds via kickstarter ??

I've bought alot of adapters for Canon. My best 2 are both Canon Japan made FD Eos 1.26x & FD Eos Macro Adapter. Canon made them in the early years of EOS vintage 1990-1993.

I always thought Canon Japan owns the FD and Eos system mounts.

My only advice to Ed is pay Fred's site $25 for a year of buy/selling subscription & then in my eyes you're 110% right to talk about this issue instead of just being 99%

MartyCastilla wrote:
I'm finally able to use my FD collection on 5DMK2.

After a lot of frustration with the aftermarket adapters and the limitations that come with them, I set out to fix this. The work started a few years ago in my spare time and with very limited funds, but I've finally finished my conversion kits. My favorite FDn lens are no longer collecting dust, especially the few FDn L series I have.

I'm finding that I'm using the my FDn 50mm 1.2 and 24mm 1.4 L more frequently then I would have thought. Call me old fashion buy I love using my MF lens over the my AF.

Several people have expressed interest in my work once I've finished. So I'm posting this to share. To help make these conversion kits available to more people I've started a project on Kickstarter.com.

Our patent system clearly does not always function very well. There are lots of instances where ordinary people would look at something and think "no way that's patentable" but the patent office will grant it anyway.

Given that context, it seems to me like Mr. Mika is well within the realm of appropriate behavior in pointing out this "patent pending" product seems closely derivative of work that has already been done by him and others, and providing evidence to support that opinion.

I decided to log in today after getting back from my business trip and look at all this. I guess I should have selected the "get email notification" button after posting.

I don't even know where to start in responding, so I'll just summarize the key points raised here. I don't really expect everyone to agree to all my points, but it is what it is.

First after scanning this thread and getting a sense of the discussions, I emailed Ed since this really boils down to an issue between the two of us.

Yes, I did buy one of Ed's FL conversion kits, but that was after I had already been working on my own design, which I started in 2010. I have all my engineering notes on the tedious work it took to get to this point. I had exchanged emails via flickr with Ed about my design back in Jan 2012 and said then that I had my own design.

Email dated Jan 12, 2012 to Ontarian (Ed Mika)

I ran across your Fredmiranda post about your FD 55 1.2 Aspherical conversion and I was wondering, wouldn't this basic design work on an FDn L series? I know the FD and FDn differences since i had started work on my own FDn non-L conversion, but I found your FL kit and stopped working on it.

Any plans or thoughts on doing a FDn 50 L conversion? This is too complex for anything I would take on, but you clearly have the mad skills to do it if its possible. (and a really nice milling machine)

What are your thoughts on using aluminum to prototype verses brass. I'm thinking of taking my design and building a prototype since it basically done."

I didn't copy his work since I had already had my own design. This was a result of my own research and countless hours of testing, measuring and prototyping. Since this is more of a hobby I don't spend a lot of continuous time working on it, so it has taken me longer than most people would expect. I know Ed knows how much work designing something like this takes and I'm not a mechanical engineer by trade so I end up having to learn as I'm going along. If I had spent more focused time I could have had this available April barring the budget limitations.

So why the delay on my part why did it take so long?

For me the delay was getting around a material break through problem with the cutout for the aperture ring tower that rises about .100" above the ring. I didn't think there was enough space without this area breaking through the opposing mount surface.

It wasn't until a friend suggested I give Autodesk Inventory a try to simulate the parts involved. I found that the cutout could be made and not breaking through.

Ed posted a link to a picture of his design. I went and looked at it today for the first time. It explains the rash of polite and not so polite comments I've been getting about how I stole Ed's design. One person threaten to "pursue means to make things right" because I refused to take down my kickstarter project. My explanations of how I got to this point didn't seem to matter, its whatever.

Well I have my own "proof" of my completed design. I'm sure if I go looking I can find other forum posts to support my position. I just didn't openly publish my work so people presumed I must have copied it.

The end results are very similar which is not surprising knowing what I know now about making these adapters. I started my EOS mount design based on the EF chrome mounting plate. My original design was very, very close to the Canon mount, that is until I took it to the local machine shop. The biggest problem that I had used basic geometric shapes for the design without any thought to the machining. The local machine explained how all the sharp corner can be done but it would take a lot of machine time $$. The machine based on the conversion I bought from Ed. Without all the facts being presented I can see how these conclusion were drawn.

As for my pending patent. Yes the application is filed and there is a step in the review process with the patent office that is called "Prior Art Search". If prior art exist the patent is rejected, any known possible prior art should also be noted on an patent application. I would be a fool to file a patent without listing all known prior art, not doing so hurts your application. The claims in my patent application are of my own work and research.

My patent filing was not limited to the kickstarter items. My other patent claims do not exist anywhere today. That I am sure of, otherwise those possible prior art references would also be on the application.

Also no where on the project page or in the video do I make any completely original claims. I do reference research sources in my patent application as required.

Thanks those of you that posted constructive feedback, I've started an FAQ on my project to clarify the main point brought up here.

I started this conversion work because none existed for the FDn lens at the time, period. I found a way to apply my aptitude in engineering to my favorite hobby and use the lenses I started this hobby with.

I think I hit the salient points is this thread. While I hate long posts I couldn't find a way around it in this case.

ZoneVRegistered: Nov 20, 2008Total Posts: 1014Country: Germany

Thank you for your explanation!
I have supposed something like this, cause I have worked on a small conversion kit for myself too. I have stopped my work there, because the lack of mechnics construction knowledge, and not time to learn it.

MartyCastilla wrote:...
The end results are very similar which is not surprising knowing what I know now about making these adapters.
..

As I wrote earlier, from a distance Ed Mikas and your conversion kit looks very alike.
But with the given space and given task to do, there are only few ways to solve the problem - which can result in nearly similar results.

MartyCastilla wrote:...
My patent filing was not limited to the kickstarter items. My other patent claims do not exist anywhere today.
...

I hope this prior art search includes non US sources too

MartyCastilla wrote:...
I started this conversion work because none existed for the FDn lens at the time, period.
...

It was a US only filing and known sources were listed, at least what came up in the prior art search and the ones I knew of.

I started to write up another long response and decided against it. I would love to continue this patent discussion but it would be abusing the forum rules and is not relevant to this forum. I posted this thread just to share since over that last year people here have expressed interest in my work. I will respond about my experiences during this process and MF lenses relevant to my original post.

One point which important to all of us. Come March 2013 the patent rules change. Prior Art no longer applies, first to file is the new rule. If I was so devious I should have waited until after March to file.

Here something to think about, what happens to the rejected parts of my filing and future claims after March.